Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Machine learning-based estimation of the mild cognitive impairment stage using multimodal physical and behavioral measures
Ingyu Park, Sang-Kyu Lee, Hui-Chul Choi, Moo-Eob Ahn, Ohk-Hyun Ryu, Yong Soon Park, Dong-Kyu Kim, Unjoo Lee et al.. Scientific reports, 2025-10-09
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a prodromal stage of dementia, and its early detection is critical for improving clinical outcomes. However, current diagnostic tools such as brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and neuropsychological testing have limited accessibility and scalability. Using machine-learning models, we aimed to evaluate whether multimodal physical and behavioral measures, specifically gait characteristics, body mass composition, and sleep parameters, could serve as digital biomarkers for estimating MCI severity. We recruited 80 patients diagnosed with MCI and classified them into early- and late-stage groups based on their Mini-Mental State Examination scores. Participants underwent clinical assessments, including the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Packet Korean Version, gait analysis using GAITRite, body composition evaluation via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, and polysomnography-based sleep assessment. Brain MRI was also performed to obtain structural imaging data. We evaluated the classification performance across various models, including support vector machines, random forest, multilayer perceptron, and convolutional neural network, using unimodal and multimodal datasets. Machine learning models trained on physical and behavioral data alone achieved a high classification accuracy (AUC up to 94%), comparable to that of MRI-based models, in differentiating early- and late-stage MCI. Combining physical and behavioral and MRI features yielded marginal improvements in the prediction performance. Gait velocity, lean body mass, and sleep efficiency were among the top predictors of cognitive function. Multimodal digital biomarkers or multimodal physical and behavioral signals can effectively estimate MCI severity and may offer a scalable, low-cost approach for early detection and monitoring of cognitive decline in real-world settings.
Key findings
- We evaluated the classification performance across various models, including support vector machines, random forest, multilayer perceptron, and convolutional neural network, using unimodal and multimodal datasets.
- Machine learning models trained on physical and behavioral data alone achieved a high classification accuracy (AUC up to 94%), comparable to that of MRI-based models, in differentiating early- and late-stage MCI.
- Combining physical and behavioral and MRI features yielded marginal improvements in the prediction performance.
- Gait velocity, lean body mass, and sleep efficiency were among the top predictors of cognitive function.
- Multimodal digital biomarkers or multimodal physical and behavioral signals can effectively estimate MCI severity and may offer a scalable, low-cost approach for early detection and monitoring of cognitive decline in real-world settings.
Study details
- Participants80
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 80 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41068341) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Park, I., Lee, S.-K., Choi, H.-C., Ahn, M.-E., Ryu, O.-H., Park, Y. S., et al. (2025). Machine learning-based estimation of the mild cognitive impairment stage using multimodal physical and behavioral measures. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19364-1
Vancouver
Park I, Lee S.-K, Choi H.-C, Ahn M.-E, Ryu O.-H, Park YS, et al. Machine learning-based estimation of the mild cognitive impairment stage using multimodal physical and behavioral measures. Scientific reports. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-19364-1. PMID: 41068341.
BibTeX
@article{park2025-41068341,
author = {Park, Ingyu and Lee, Sang-Kyu and Choi, Hui-Chul and Ahn, Moo-Eob and Ryu, Ohk-Hyun and Park, Yong Soon and Kim, Dong-Kyu and Lee, Unjoo and others},
title = {{Machine learning-based estimation of the mild cognitive impairment stage using multimodal physical and behavioral measures}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-025-19364-1},
pmid = {41068341},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19364-1}
}